Validity of the SDS-17 measure of social desirability in the American context

In Germany, Stober et al. (1999, 2001) presented evidence for the validity of the SDS-17, a new measure of social desirability bias. In the current investigation, three experiments (n = 800) assessed the SDS-17’s validity in the US environment. In all conditions SDS-17 scores correlated highly with Marlowe–Crowne scores. In Study 1, a group administration of a paper and pencil booklet, SDS-17 scores of 327 college students were higher under Fake Good than Standard conditions, and both were higher than scores in the Honest condition. Study 2, an online survey of a demographically diverse adult sample (n = 257), showed that the increase in SDS-17 scores under Fake Good conditions occurs also in a Web survey and that SDS-17 scores were unrelated to one’s demographic profile. Study 3, a group administration to 216 college students, revealed again that scores under Fake Good were higher than those under Standard administration and that SDS-17 scores correlated more highly with the Impression Management than with the Self-Deception subscales of the BIDR. The SDS-17 appeared valid for the US environment as a measure of socially desirable responding. The evidence, however, encourages its further assessment as an index of social desirability bias per se.     

Turning a blind eye to double blind line‐ups

Although psychologists have urged police officers to use double blind line‐up procedures during their investigations, police officers state that these would be difficult to administer and most have been reluctant to implement this change. Four studies examine whether lay people's judgements about the guilt of a suspect vary according to whether a brief written summary of a case described the identification procedure as double blind or non‐double blind. The effects were all small (and almost all non‐significant). Most people do not treat double blind line‐ups differently from non‐double blind line‐ups when assessing the guilt of a defendant. Either police investigators should stop using this biased method or police investigators and others in the judicial system (e.g. jurors, judges) should be informed of this bias when evaluating results from any line‐up. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An experiential avoidance conceptualization of depressive rumination: Three tests of the model

This study examined an experiential avoidance conceptualization of depressive rumination in 3 ways: 1) associations among questionnaire measures of rumination, experiential avoidance, and fear of emotions; 2) performance on a dichotic listening task that highlights preferences for non-depressive material; and 3) psychophysiological reactivity in an avoidance paradigm modeled after the one used by Borkovec, Lyonfields, Wiser, and Deihl (1993) in their examination of worry. One hundred and thirty-eight undergraduates completed questionnaire measures and participated in a clinical interview to diagnose current and past episodes of depression. Of those, 100 were randomly assigned to a rumination or relaxation induction condition and participated in a dichotic listening task, rumination/relaxation induction, and depression induction. Questionnaire measures confirmed a relationship between rumination status and avoidance; however, no significant effects were found in the dichotic listening task. Psychophysiological measures indicated no difference in physiological response to a depression induction among high ruminators (HR). However, low ruminators (LR) in the relaxation condition exhibited a larger IBI response than LR in the rumination condition. Overall, these results provide partial support for an avoidance conceptualization of depressive rumination. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Canine responses to familiar and unfamiliar humans

Dogs were observed during controlled approaches by their owners and by strangers. Significant differences between the dogs' responses to their owners and their responses to strangers were found. These results supported the popular belief that dogs respond differently to different persons, and not merely to different situations in which persons are usually encountered.